War Rating should be the indicator for determining matchmaking as has a very strong correlation to how your Alliance performs in War. However, it isn't really accurate in the instance that happened to OP. This alliance hasn't participated in War since Season 27 and even then, they finished Bronze so I suspect they didn't participate in anywhere close to 12 Wars. Now I absolutely don't think that they use other factors outside of War Rating for matchmaking but I think it may be necessary to have War Rating work more similarly to Prestige in the sense that each member of the Alliance has their own personal War Rating and that is added together and then divided amongst the number of people in the alliance to determine the War Rating as a whole. If would prevent the ability for alliances to swap into another shell and just steamroll people as their War Rating would actually move with them.
In any sport you progress up the ranks until you reach your “natural” peak. Would you think its fair for you to play the majors golf tournament just because you have the best golf clubs? Or not be allowed to take part cause you don't have the latest and greatest?
If you want to compete at the top, then make your way into the top. That alliance will eventually get to a spot where the fights are matched. They will win everything in silver 2 and move past everyone else and this one loss should mot make or break your season
Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.
So your sports analogy is nonsense.
And the current matchmaker is garbage.
There’s a vocal and angry group of forum members that insist it’s fair because by their logic it should be, despite matchups happening between alliances that differ by over 1000 alliance prestige.
The only fair way to fix the matchmaker is by having bgs assigned and locked in for war BEFORE being matched to an opponent, then matching them based on their average pi, prestige, and distribution of each within the group (to prevent sand bagging).
But kabam can’t even make block work so good luck getting matchmaker fixed.
My alliance has a higher total rating and prestige than master's rank 1 alliance but we're platinum 3 cause we don't play war too seriously. War matchmaking should be based on war rating and war rating alone. There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
So an alliance in silver 2 where each player might have a handful of 5/65 champs going against an alliance that has multiple r4 6s is perfectly fair?
Come on. You know that’s ****.
And if aq gave 6s shards I’d be all over that. But it just gives glory and mats. So if I want new champs I need to do war and that means putting up with the crappy matchmaker.
Because war rating is specific only to an alliance and not an individual player, you can game the system by changing the makeup of an alliance. It’s a completely useless metric in terms of evaluating fair potential matchups.
It’s like that commercial where the little kids are playing pickup and one team picks Charles Barkley.
Maybe that’s fine for where you’re at and the effort you want to put in, but for players trying to grow their account through war, it’s endlessly frustrating. The old system made far better matchups way more often imo.
Do you really think it’s fair for paragon or tb players to go against uncollected or new even cav?
It's absolutely fair if you're competing for the same rewards. It's not like silver 2 is matching against platinum 2 alliance. If you're both in the same tier, you can't expect to not match them and still get the same rewards as them.
That sort of thing happens all the time tho.
A silver two alliance matching against a gold alliance has literally happened to me. We matched against them and they had like 1800 higher prestige than we had. I checked in on them later in the season and they were in gold 1 and we were still at silver 2.
Some of you seem to believe that because the alliance rating is fair on paper that it’s fair in practice and it just doesn’t happen that way at all.
Maybe if you’re plat and master and always run 3 bgs it seems like it does, but if you’re in silver or gold or outside the top 1000 alliances in war, mismatches happen very often.
Thing is, it’s not fair on paper or in practice if you make match ups based on alliance prestige or base rating
If you make it based on base rating, you could get a low alliance that wins 12/12 matches against equally low alliances and get number 1 place. They could have made it into tier 1 because they’re only facing equally low alliances. Do you think that’s fair? The top alliances being beaten because they aren’t facing their opponents?
It’s like if you had a professional team sport competition, let’s take Football (soccer). You have a bunch of 12 year olds in grass roots teams facing only other 12 year olds. 1 team of the 12 year olds manages to win every game of their season and as a result, place higher than Barcelona and Real Madrid. Is that really fair? Avoiding the top teams because you are only able to match up with someone around your ability?
Or is it fairer to have a rating based on ability, and to match up with those around your ability?
Not to mention it’s counter intuitive to incentivise people to stop ranking champions or increasing prestige so they get easier match ups in war. Everything goes against your proposed system.
The only downside of war rating is that occasionally you will face matchups with stronger alliances. But the reason they have their war rating is that they have won the same proportion of their match ups as you have, there’s a reason they are losing their matches. Maybe they don’t play well, maybe they don’t take it seriously. Or maybe they’re on the way up and they’re a new alliance. In which case they won’t be at that war rating for long.
I know it sucks, nobody is saying it’s a good part of the system. But unfortunately it’s the best of all other systems. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This system is good, no system is perfect. The systems you suggest are bad.
I appreciate the thoughtful response instead of the usual “war rating is fair so matchmaking is fair” argument people throw up here. So thank you for taking the time to write that.
But so you think it’s fair to have 13 year olds play Barca? Even with their financial problems 😉
I think we’re taking about two different things here. You’re talking about points scored and rank and I’m just talking about fair matchups individually.
So to your point, yes you would have to change the ranking/rewards system if you changed matchmaker to ensure the 12 year olds don’t get champions league money and Barca doesn’t get some soft serve ice cream after the game.
And as far as frequency of bad matches happening, for me it’s usually at least 50% of the matches. I’d say maybe 1/3 are against players with similar account sizes/prestige.
In any sport you progress up the ranks until you reach your “natural” peak. Would you think its fair for you to play the majors golf tournament just because you have the best golf clubs? Or not be allowed to take part cause you don't have the latest and greatest?
If you want to compete at the top, then make your way into the top. That alliance will eventually get to a spot where the fights are matched. They will win everything in silver 2 and move past everyone else and this one loss should mot make or break your season
Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.
So your sports analogy is nonsense.
And the current matchmaker is garbage.
There’s a vocal and angry group of forum members that insist it’s fair because by their logic it should be, despite matchups happening between alliances that differ by over 1000 alliance prestige.
The only fair way to fix the matchmaker is by having bgs assigned and locked in for war BEFORE being matched to an opponent, then matching them based on their average pi, prestige, and distribution of each within the group (to prevent sand bagging).
But kabam can’t even make block work so good luck getting matchmaker fixed.
My alliance has a higher total rating and prestige than master's rank 1 alliance but we're platinum 3 cause we don't play war too seriously. War matchmaking should be based on war rating and war rating alone. There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
So an alliance in silver 2 where each player might have a handful of 5/65 champs going against an alliance that has multiple r4 6s is perfectly fair?
Come on. You know that’s ****.
And if aq gave 6s shards I’d be all over that. But it just gives glory and mats. So if I want new champs I need to do war and that means putting up with the crappy matchmaker.
Because war rating is specific only to an alliance and not an individual player, you can game the system by changing the makeup of an alliance. It’s a completely useless metric in terms of evaluating fair potential matchups.
It’s like that commercial where the little kids are playing pickup and one team picks Charles Barkley.
Maybe that’s fine for where you’re at and the effort you want to put in, but for players trying to grow their account through war, it’s endlessly frustrating. The old system made far better matchups way more often imo.
Do you really think it’s fair for paragon or tb players to go against uncollected or new even cav?
The "old" system let alliances purposely leaving the prestige low get to the top of Master bc they never had to match anyone that typically placed there. It was a joke.
I get you want easier matches but as I've already said, if someone is that much stronger and still has the same rating, they aren't trying very hard or just aren't any good.
Or they’re just a new alliance or sandbag during the off-season to drop ratings.
What a big joke has this game become!!! How can this match could be normal to Kabam? I stop playing for one year exactly for this reason: AW match up!!! Explain how is this possible? Are you all making fun of players?
Your rating is 2 apart. That's about as close of a match as it gets.
This match up was a big joke you all can write everything you want but I don’t think was/is fair. You can fight really good until a certain point but when you and your teammates have a handful of 5* r5 and on the other side they have 6* r4 in defense and also in attack how can you possibly tell me that this match up is close as it gets?! Do we want to talk about the general ally rating? 25 mil vs 65 mil? Or the general members rating 800k vs 2000k? How is this close?
If prestige or base rating mattered at all you'd see NY and TCN dominating war as well as AQ. Guess what? They don't, like not even close.
You’re confusing “matter” with “matter at all”. When in fact it absolutely matters, it’s just that it’s one of several factors that matter.
But is prestige and pi important? Absolutely. A group with just 4s champs will time out before beating a boss island of r4 6s champs. Maybe several times. So in gold 1-2 and higher matches that’s the differences between a win and a loss in war right there.
Something those of you arguing that getting matched by war rating not being fair are missing is that there is a reason why the two alliances have a similar war rating to get matched up to begin with.
For example, my alliance is full of massive accounts (72 million alliance rating and a lot of us are paragon) but we are also mostly semi retired from the game and dont care about aw. We run 1 BG of optional and completely unorganized aw. No assigned defenders, no diversity, no assigned lanes, no one cares if don't finish a lane or if someone uses a dozen revives, we just don't care.
We usually are around silver, sometimes we get matched with alliances that are much much much lower alliance rating or prestige. These wars are often close and we lose a lot of them even though we are stronger, being strong doesn't make that big of a difference when we just don't care and put in zero effort.
That is the point many of you are missing, either your alliance trying waaaay too hard and is higher than it should be to get the bad matchups, or your dealing with alliances like mine that might be strong but put in zero effort and can easily be beat.
But having such a massive difference in champion level is a huge advantage to you that can swing the match in your favor regardless of war rating.
That’s where war rating breaks down is in these massive differences in prestige/pi.
Something those of you arguing that getting matched by war rating not being fair are missing is that there is a reason why the two alliances have a similar war rating to get matched up to begin with.
For example, my alliance is full of massive accounts (72 million alliance rating and a lot of us are paragon) but we are also mostly semi retired from the game and dont care about aw. We run 1 BG of optional and completely unorganized aw. No assigned defenders, no diversity, no assigned lanes, no one cares if don't finish a lane or if someone uses a dozen revives, we just don't care.
We usually are around silver, sometimes we get matched with alliances that are much much much lower alliance rating or prestige. These wars are often close and we lose a lot of them even though we are stronger, being strong doesn't make that big of a difference when we just don't care and put in zero effort.
That is the point many of you are missing, either your alliance trying waaaay too hard and is higher than it should be to get the bad matchups, or your dealing with alliances like mine that might be strong but put in zero effort and can easily be beat.
Because this system is not entirely perfect, there are times where stronger alliances are moving up the ratings, maybe they’ve had a break, or they’re new, or they recently recruited much stronger members. But that is the small downside to an otherwise good system. And how else would you manage that? You have to let the system naturally sort people based on ability.
And this is where war rating fails. Because it doesn’t rate the player, it rates the alliance the player may or may not be in.
Say you recruit a group of 10 plat aw guys to fill in some holes during the off-season. They just want a nice cushy retirement alliance and you’d love the help in aq etc.
You run 2 bg war so 5 of those guys in each with their champs being the boss island and minis and on the nastier nodes.
Your alliance is still getting matched based on your war rating BEFORE those guys joined. So the war rating matchmaker is going to match you against opponents that used to be fairly even but now that you’ll slaughter. That’s going to happen multiple times until the war rating catches up to make it an even match.
Meaning you’re going to go against 5+ matches where you’re going to mop the floor with them until you get some decent competition again. But your opponents just see a giant mismatch.
If war rating was based on the individuals queueing for each war then I would agree that would be a decent metric for a fair fight.
But it’s not. It’s based on alliances and not the individual. And alliances can rapidly change composition and the war rating doesn’t account for that quickly because it’s mostly just a trial and error metric.
Years ago, when kabam made it where AW matchups didn't go by AW rating and went by other factors like prestige, it was ridiculously unfair. As an example, I was running two accounts then, an end game account (having completed 100% of game content at the time) in a competitive AW focused alliance and a silly little mini account that I mainly used to farm units to gift myself and that account was only UC at the time and was in a fairly weak alliance of mostly low cavalier and high UC players.
Long story short, both alliances my 2 accounts were in both finished in plat 3. This sounds about right for my main account in main alliance, but how in the world did my mini account who still had 4* stars in the profile (as did many of my alliance members in mini account alliance) finish at same AW tier?
The answer is obviously the system was broken because that alliance got nothing but matches against extremely weak alliances, while my main only got matches against extremely strong alliances, but at the end of the season they got the exact same rewards!
This means the alliance my mini was in took the spot in plat 3 of a much more deserving alliance who was much strong but got harder matches. How is it fair my mini alliance got better rewards than them? Also, plat 3 rewards for such a small account can quickly lead to game balancing issues.
This is why what some of you want isn't fair at all. A weaker alliance who can't compete with stronger alliances should not get the same or better rewards than much stronger alliances.
Again, here you are confusing the idea of a fair fight with fair rewards. War rating determines matchups. Points determine awards.
We can argue points and rewards later. Maybe a point modifier like tiers but based on something else like pi/prestige.
All I want is a fair matchup and war rating doesn’t give that.
I’m also not wanting the old system back. I want a system less subject to manipulation than the current one.
In any sport you progress up the ranks until you reach your “natural” peak. Would you think its fair for you to play the majors golf tournament just because you have the best golf clubs? Or not be allowed to take part cause you don't have the latest and greatest?
If you want to compete at the top, then make your way into the top. That alliance will eventually get to a spot where the fights are matched. They will win everything in silver 2 and move past everyone else and this one loss should mot make or break your season
Alliances change members and those members all improve and change activity levels and participation sporadically. Alliances that run less than 3 bg war alternate members during the season as well.
So your sports analogy is nonsense.
And the current matchmaker is garbage.
There’s a vocal and angry group of forum members that insist it’s fair because by their logic it should be, despite matchups happening between alliances that differ by over 1000 alliance prestige.
The only fair way to fix the matchmaker is by having bgs assigned and locked in for war BEFORE being matched to an opponent, then matching them based on their average pi, prestige, and distribution of each within the group (to prevent sand bagging).
But kabam can’t even make block work so good luck getting matchmaker fixed.
My alliance has a higher total rating and prestige than master's rank 1 alliance but we're platinum 3 cause we don't play war too seriously. War matchmaking should be based on war rating and war rating alone. There's already a game mode which takes prestige into account, it's called aq. It has no meaning in aw.
So an alliance in silver 2 where each player might have a handful of 5/65 champs going against an alliance that has multiple r4 6s is perfectly fair?
Come on. You know that’s ****.
And if aq gave 6s shards I’d be all over that. But it just gives glory and mats. So if I want new champs I need to do war and that means putting up with the crappy matchmaker.
Because war rating is specific only to an alliance and not an individual player, you can game the system by changing the makeup of an alliance. It’s a completely useless metric in terms of evaluating fair potential matchups.
It’s like that commercial where the little kids are playing pickup and one team picks Charles Barkley.
Maybe that’s fine for where you’re at and the effort you want to put in, but for players trying to grow their account through war, it’s endlessly frustrating. The old system made far better matchups way more often imo.
Do you really think it’s fair for paragon or tb players to go against uncollected or new even cav?
It's absolutely fair if you're competing for the same rewards. It's not like silver 2 is matching against platinum 2 alliance. If you're both in the same tier, you can't expect to not match them and still get the same rewards as them.
That sort of thing happens all the time tho.
A silver two alliance matching against a gold alliance has literally happened to me. We matched against them and they had like 1800 higher prestige than we had. I checked in on them later in the season and they were in gold 1 and we were still at silver 2.
Some of you seem to believe that because the alliance rating is fair on paper that it’s fair in practice and it just doesn’t happen that way at all.
Maybe if you’re plat and master and always run 3 bgs it seems like it does, but if you’re in silver or gold or outside the top 1000 alliances in war, mismatches happen very often.
Thing is, it’s not fair on paper or in practice if you make match ups based on alliance prestige or base rating
If you make it based on base rating, you could get a low alliance that wins 12/12 matches against equally low alliances and get number 1 place. They could have made it into tier 1 because they’re only facing equally low alliances. Do you think that’s fair? The top alliances being beaten because they aren’t facing their opponents?
It’s like if you had a professional team sport competition, let’s take Football (soccer). You have a bunch of 12 year olds in grass roots teams facing only other 12 year olds. 1 team of the 12 year olds manages to win every game of their season and as a result, place higher than Barcelona and Real Madrid. Is that really fair? Avoiding the top teams because you are only able to match up with someone around your ability?
Or is it fairer to have a rating based on ability, and to match up with those around your ability?
Not to mention it’s counter intuitive to incentivise people to stop ranking champions or increasing prestige so they get easier match ups in war. Everything goes against your proposed system.
The only downside of war rating is that occasionally you will face matchups with stronger alliances. But the reason they have their war rating is that they have won the same proportion of their match ups as you have, there’s a reason they are losing their matches. Maybe they don’t play well, maybe they don’t take it seriously. Or maybe they’re on the way up and they’re a new alliance. In which case they won’t be at that war rating for long.
I know it sucks, nobody is saying it’s a good part of the system. But unfortunately it’s the best of all other systems. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This system is good, no system is perfect. The systems you suggest are bad.
I appreciate the thoughtful response instead of the usual “war rating is fair so matchmaking is fair” argument people throw up here. So thank you for taking the time to write that.
But so you think it’s fair to have 13 year olds play Barca? Even with their financial problems 😉
I think we’re taking about two different things here. You’re talking about points scored and rank and I’m just talking about fair matchups individually.
So to your point, yes you would have to change the ranking/rewards system if you changed matchmaker to ensure the 12 year olds don’t get champions league money and Barca doesn’t get some soft serve ice cream after the game.
And as far as frequency of bad matches happening, for me it’s usually at least 50% of the matches. I’d say maybe 1/3 are against players with similar account sizes/prestige.
I mean, the 12 year olds was more a tongue in cheek comment to get the point across. In reality, it would be like a Sunday league team of dads with beer bellies qualifying for, and winning the champions league because they beat the other dads teams, when Barcelona played teams equal to their level.
We are talking about separate aspects, but with your suggestion you’re saying to hell with the final points at the end of the season, if it means we get fair match ups based on alliance rating, then I’m fine with an alliance made from players who have 2* as their max champions winning 12/12 of their fights and coming 1st in the world, getting 6* nexus’ and rank 4 material. Because to me, any system that can do that is broken. The idea should be “let’s avoid that at all costs, and work backwards to creating a system”.
With regards to the 50/50 point, you aren’t supposed to see alliances the same size as you 50% of the time necessarily. That was more about if you match with someone you should generally have a 50/50 chance to beat them. The only time that doesn’t happen is when an alliance is moving up in the war ratings so you’ll have a lower chance of beating them, or moving down so you’ll have a higher chance.
Just to clarify that last point, if an alliance has just been made then they have a low war rating. They will trend and move upwards over time, so they will have easy matches. If an alliance has lost a ton of good players, they will have a higher war rating than they “deserve” and will trend down, so will have harder matches in general. That’s what I mean by “moving up in war rating”
If you face an alliance that has been the same sort of war rating over the last 6 months, and you have been the same war rating over the last 6 months *even if they have a base rating 10x yours* you will have a 50/50 chance of beating them - because there is a reason they have stayed at that rating, because they win and lose a similar amount of matches as you. Again, maybe they don’t place many defenders, or take it seriously, or aren’t very skilled.
Something those of you arguing that getting matched by war rating not being fair are missing is that there is a reason why the two alliances have a similar war rating to get matched up to begin with.
For example, my alliance is full of massive accounts (72 million alliance rating and a lot of us are paragon) but we are also mostly semi retired from the game and dont care about aw. We run 1 BG of optional and completely unorganized aw. No assigned defenders, no diversity, no assigned lanes, no one cares if don't finish a lane or if someone uses a dozen revives, we just don't care.
We usually are around silver, sometimes we get matched with alliances that are much much much lower alliance rating or prestige. These wars are often close and we lose a lot of them even though we are stronger, being strong doesn't make that big of a difference when we just don't care and put in zero effort.
That is the point many of you are missing, either your alliance trying waaaay too hard and is higher than it should be to get the bad matchups, or your dealing with alliances like mine that might be strong but put in zero effort and can easily be beat.
Because this system is not entirely perfect, there are times where stronger alliances are moving up the ratings, maybe they’ve had a break, or they’re new, or they recently recruited much stronger members. But that is the small downside to an otherwise good system. And how else would you manage that? You have to let the system naturally sort people based on ability.
And this is where war rating fails. Because it doesn’t rate the player, it rates the alliance the player may or may not be in.
Say you recruit a group of 10 plat aw guys to fill in some holes during the off-season. They just want a nice cushy retirement alliance and you’d love the help in aq etc.
You run 2 bg war so 5 of those guys in each with their champs being the boss island and minis and on the nastier nodes.
Your alliance is still getting matched based on your war rating BEFORE those guys joined. So the war rating matchmaker is going to match you against opponents that used to be fairly even but now that you’ll slaughter. That’s going to happen multiple times until the war rating catches up to make it an even match.
Meaning you’re going to go against 5+ matches where you’re going to mop the floor with them until you get some decent competition again. But your opponents just see a giant mismatch.
If war rating was based on the individuals queueing for each war then I would agree that would be a decent metric for a fair fight.
But it’s not. It’s based on alliances and not the individual. And alliances can rapidly change composition and the war rating doesn’t account for that quickly because it’s mostly just a trial and error metric.
As I said before, I agree that’s not the nicest thing about the system but unfortunately it’s the one that works best.
I get that to you it feels like it’s a sucky system and this is what’s plaguing you right now so that’s why the system sucks - but we’ve had other systems in the past and it was unfair on a much grander scale for all the reasons I’ve explained.
You may feel like your problem is the most important thing and the system should be changed, but if you take a step back and consider the other problems your issue is a small one with the current system, whereas the other systems were broken and so unfair.
Do you have any suggestions for what could work? A new system that’s not based on war rating, but equally isn’t based on base hero rating, because that’s not fair. I mean this with the greatest respect, but just pointing out that bad match ups can happen is not going to change the system.
Not to mention, base hero rating isn’t even that fair on a match up level. Take a hypothetical alliance, say they’re I don’t know 50 million, and say they’re an 8/10 skills. Their top champs are all 5* 5/65s. They match up with other 20 mill alliances with 8/10 skills. Now say every one of them ranked up each of their 2*,3* and 4*. Now they’re a 70 million alliance with 8/10 skills. But now they’re matching other 70 mil alliances, who didn’t rank up their lower stars, and their top champs are 6* 4/55s and they have 9/10 skills.
That’s an unfair match up for sure, and it’s much more common than the ones you had where war rating is involved. They will now be against all 70m alliances, and they can’t even fix it. They can’t unrank champions. They are constantly going to be facing higher alliances, unless they just stop ranking champions full stop and let other alliances get further ahead so they get easier match ups.
With war rating, if you’re out of your depth then system corrects itself. With base rating, it can’t.
Something those of you arguing that getting matched by war rating not being fair are missing is that there is a reason why the two alliances have a similar war rating to get matched up to begin with.
For example, my alliance is full of massive accounts (72 million alliance rating and a lot of us are paragon) but we are also mostly semi retired from the game and dont care about aw. We run 1 BG of optional and completely unorganized aw. No assigned defenders, no diversity, no assigned lanes, no one cares if don't finish a lane or if someone uses a dozen revives, we just don't care.
We usually are around silver, sometimes we get matched with alliances that are much much much lower alliance rating or prestige. These wars are often close and we lose a lot of them even though we are stronger, being strong doesn't make that big of a difference when we just don't care and put in zero effort.
That is the point many of you are missing, either your alliance trying waaaay too hard and is higher than it should be to get the bad matchups, or your dealing with alliances like mine that might be strong but put in zero effort and can easily be beat.
Because this system is not entirely perfect, there are times where stronger alliances are moving up the ratings, maybe they’ve had a break, or they’re new, or they recently recruited much stronger members. But that is the small downside to an otherwise good system. And how else would you manage that? You have to let the system naturally sort people based on ability.
And this is where war rating fails. Because it doesn’t rate the player, it rates the alliance the player may or may not be in.
Say you recruit a group of 10 plat aw guys to fill in some holes during the off-season. They just want a nice cushy retirement alliance and you’d love the help in aq etc.
You run 2 bg war so 5 of those guys in each with their champs being the boss island and minis and on the nastier nodes.
Your alliance is still getting matched based on your war rating BEFORE those guys joined. So the war rating matchmaker is going to match you against opponents that used to be fairly even but now that you’ll slaughter. That’s going to happen multiple times until the war rating catches up to make it an even match.
Meaning you’re going to go against 5+ matches where you’re going to mop the floor with them until you get some decent competition again. But your opponents just see a giant mismatch.
If war rating was based on the individuals queueing for each war then I would agree that would be a decent metric for a fair fight.
But it’s not. It’s based on alliances and not the individual. And alliances can rapidly change composition and the war rating doesn’t account for that quickly because it’s mostly just a trial and error metric.
As I said before, I agree that’s not the nicest thing about the system but unfortunately it’s the one that works best.
I get that to you it feels like it’s a sucky system and this is what’s plaguing you right now so that’s why the system sucks - but we’ve had other systems in the past and it was unfair on a much grander scale for all the reasons I’ve explained.
You may feel like your problem is the most important thing and the system should be changed, but if you take a step back and consider the other problems your issue is a small one with the current system, whereas the other systems were broken and so unfair.
Do you have any suggestions for what could work? A new system that’s not based on war rating, but equally isn’t based on base hero rating, because that’s not fair. I mean this with the greatest respect, but just pointing out that bad match ups can happen is not going to change the system.
Not to mention, base hero rating isn’t even that fair on a match up level. Take a hypothetical alliance, say they’re I don’t know 50 million, and say they’re an 8/10 skills. Their top champs are all 5* 5/65s. They match up with other 20 mill alliances with 8/10 skills. Now say every one of them ranked up each of their 2*,3* and 4*. Now they’re a 70 million alliance with 8/10 skills. But now they’re matching other 70 mil alliances, who didn’t rank up their lower stars, and their top champs are 6* 4/55s and they have 9/10 skills.
That’s an unfair match up for sure, and it’s much more common than the ones you had where war rating is involved. They will now be against all 70m alliances, and they can’t even fix it. They can’t unrank champions. They are constantly going to be facing higher alliances, unless they just stop ranking champions full stop and let other alliances get further ahead so they get easier match ups.
With war rating, if you’re out of your depth then system corrects itself. With base rating, it can’t.
I think the only way to really make it fair imo is to give individuals war ratings based on their own specific performance in war (overall stat over time and then recent performance in case they retire sort of like how CoD tracks your overall KDR and also displays recent performances). We already do this for honors bonus and scoring so it would just need a tweak.
(But as long as war ratings are based on what the alliance does, and because alliance membership and war participation is constantly changing, war rating itself is a horribly inaccurate metric.)
Then have people join up in bgs with their defenders selected, then queue the matchmaker. That way PRIOR to the match beginning you know who is queued and what champs will be on defense. That will allow a much more even matchup based on defensive rosters plus individual war ratings.
That also eliminates the variance you see in alliances running less than 3 bgs (where the top 20 accounts might do the first 6 wars and then the bottom 10 accounts might sub in for the last 6 wars).
Think of any CoD or battlefield skill based matchmaking lobby and that’s basically what I’d like to see here.
It’ll never happen because it’s kabam and they generally could care less as long as the whales are still splashing money but I guess I can dream.
To the two haters, don’t forget to passive aggressively click disagree down there. I’d hate to see you two guys miss a post of mine. 🤣
Comments
But so you think it’s fair to have 13 year olds play Barca? Even with their financial problems 😉
I think we’re taking about two different things here. You’re talking about points scored and rank and I’m just talking about fair matchups individually.
So to your point, yes you would have to change the ranking/rewards system if you changed matchmaker to ensure the 12 year olds don’t get champions league money and Barca doesn’t get some soft serve ice cream after the game.
And as far as frequency of bad matches happening, for me it’s usually at least 50% of the matches. I’d say maybe 1/3 are against players with similar account sizes/prestige.
But is prestige and pi important? Absolutely. A group with just 4s champs will time out before beating a boss island of r4 6s champs. Maybe several times. So in gold 1-2 and higher matches that’s the differences between a win and a loss in war right there.
That’s where war rating breaks down is in these massive differences in prestige/pi.
Say you recruit a group of 10 plat aw guys to fill in some holes during the off-season. They just want a nice cushy retirement alliance and you’d love the help in aq etc.
You run 2 bg war so 5 of those guys in each with their champs being the boss island and minis and on the nastier nodes.
Your alliance is still getting matched based on your war rating BEFORE those guys joined. So the war rating matchmaker is going to match you against opponents that used to be fairly even but now that you’ll slaughter. That’s going to happen multiple times until the war rating catches up to make it an even match.
Meaning you’re going to go against 5+ matches where you’re going to mop the floor with them until you get some decent competition again. But your opponents just see a giant mismatch.
If war rating was based on the individuals queueing for each war then I would agree that would be a decent metric for a fair fight.
But it’s not. It’s based on alliances and not the individual. And alliances can rapidly change composition and the war rating doesn’t account for that quickly because it’s mostly just a trial and error metric.
We can argue points and rewards later. Maybe a point modifier like tiers but based on something else like pi/prestige.
All I want is a fair matchup and war rating doesn’t give that.
I’m also not wanting the old system back. I want a system less subject to manipulation than the current one.
We are talking about separate aspects, but with your suggestion you’re saying to hell with the final points at the end of the season, if it means we get fair match ups based on alliance rating, then I’m fine with an alliance made from players who have 2* as their max champions winning 12/12 of their fights and coming 1st in the world, getting 6* nexus’ and rank 4 material. Because to me, any system that can do that is broken. The idea should be “let’s avoid that at all costs, and work backwards to creating a system”.
With regards to the 50/50 point, you aren’t supposed to see alliances the same size as you 50% of the time necessarily. That was more about if you match with someone you should generally have a 50/50 chance to beat them. The only time that doesn’t happen is when an alliance is moving up in the war ratings so you’ll have a lower chance of beating them, or moving down so you’ll have a higher chance.
Just to clarify that last point, if an alliance has just been made then they have a low war rating. They will trend and move upwards over time, so they will have easy matches. If an alliance has lost a ton of good players, they will have a higher war rating than they “deserve” and will trend down, so will have harder matches in general. That’s what I mean by “moving up in war rating”
If you face an alliance that has been the same sort of war rating over the last 6 months, and you have been the same war rating over the last 6 months *even if they have a base rating 10x yours* you will have a 50/50 chance of beating them - because there is a reason they have stayed at that rating, because they win and lose a similar amount of matches as you. Again, maybe they don’t place many defenders, or take it seriously, or aren’t very skilled.
I get that to you it feels like it’s a sucky system and this is what’s plaguing you right now so that’s why the system sucks - but we’ve had other systems in the past and it was unfair on a much grander scale for all the reasons I’ve explained.
You may feel like your problem is the most important thing and the system should be changed, but if you take a step back and consider the other problems your issue is a small one with the current system, whereas the other systems were broken and so unfair.
Do you have any suggestions for what could work? A new system that’s not based on war rating, but equally isn’t based on base hero rating, because that’s not fair. I mean this with the greatest respect, but just pointing out that bad match ups can happen is not going to change the system.
Not to mention, base hero rating isn’t even that fair on a match up level. Take a hypothetical alliance, say they’re I don’t know 50 million, and say they’re an 8/10 skills. Their top champs are all 5* 5/65s. They match up with other 20 mill alliances with 8/10 skills. Now say every one of them ranked up each of their 2*,3* and 4*. Now they’re a 70 million alliance with 8/10 skills. But now they’re matching other 70 mil alliances, who didn’t rank up their lower stars, and their top champs are 6* 4/55s and they have 9/10 skills.
That’s an unfair match up for sure, and it’s much more common than the ones you had where war rating is involved. They will now be against all 70m alliances, and they can’t even fix it. They can’t unrank champions. They are constantly going to be facing higher alliances, unless they just stop ranking champions full stop and let other alliances get further ahead so they get easier match ups.
With war rating, if you’re out of your depth then system corrects itself. With base rating, it can’t.
(But as long as war ratings are based on what the alliance does, and because alliance membership and war participation is constantly changing, war rating itself is a horribly inaccurate metric.)
Then have people join up in bgs with their defenders selected, then queue the matchmaker. That way PRIOR to the match beginning you know who is queued and what champs will be on defense. That will allow a much more even matchup based on defensive rosters plus individual war ratings.
That also eliminates the variance you see in alliances running less than 3 bgs (where the top 20 accounts might do the first 6 wars and then the bottom 10 accounts might sub in for the last 6 wars).
Think of any CoD or battlefield skill based matchmaking lobby and that’s basically what I’d like to see here.
It’ll never happen because it’s kabam and they generally could care less as long as the whales are still splashing money but I guess I can dream.
To the two haters, don’t forget to passive aggressively click disagree down there. I’d hate to see you two guys miss a post of mine. 🤣